*** v Essetre (CFI, 28 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 28 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_239/2024), the Paris Central Division (Presiding Judge Catallozzi as judge-rapporteur, Judge Zhilova and technically qualified Judge Elmeros) dismissed a revocation action brought by an anonymised claimant against Essetre Holding’s EP 2 875 923 B1, which concerns a machine for machining walls, and maintained the patent as amended by the main request. Its main interest lies in claim construction: the indefinite article in « a working surface » was read as « one working surface », in the light of its ordinary meaning and the description (paragraphs 22 to 26). It also shows how costs are apportioned where the proprietor saves its patent only by limiting it: 70% to the claimant and 30% to the proprietor (paragraph 72).

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 31 October 2014 claiming Italian priority of 20 November 2013, protects a machine with a portal, working heads and a working surface made of two support and movement frames able to turn a wall over without lateral auxiliary carriages. The claimant attacked, in particular, claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10.

In its defence of 8 August 2024, Essetre filed a main request unconditionally amending claim 1 and five auxiliary requests, later withdrawing the third. After the interim conference of 18 April 2025, at which the value of the action was set at EUR 100,000 (paragraph 73), the oral hearing took place on 3 June 2025. Paragraph 1 dates the filing of the action to 17 May 2025, the operative part to 17 May 2024.

The applicable law

The panel starts from the claim, with the description and drawings as aids to interpretation (paragraph 16, citing the Court of Appeal order of 26 February 2024), terms may bear a meaning specific to the patent’s own lexicon (paragraph 17). The skilled person is a mechanical engineer experienced in designing machine tools (paragraph 18). The grounds examined arise under Articles 54, 56, 84 and 123(2) EPC.

Question

Is amended claim 1, which adds a « lateral retraction » of the frames relative to the fixed base frame with simultaneous rotation (feature 1.6.3), clear, supported by the application as filed, novel and inventive?

Decision

The added feature is clear: the skilled person understands lateral retraction as a sideways movement perpendicular to the axis of rotation (paragraphs 32 to 34). It is based on paragraph [0041] of the description, with the variants covered by paragraphs [0049] and [0050], and « at the same time » means the same as « simultaneous » (paragraphs 37 to 43).

On novelty, DE 34 12 441 C2 (MB1) does not clearly disclose a turner with the claimed structure and shows two portals on separate working surfaces with no common base frame (paragraphs 50 to 54), an online video (MB7) does not show simultaneous translation and rotation (paragraphs 57 and 58). On inventive step, the objective problem is reducing the lateral footprint and speeding up turning (paragraphs 61 and 62), neither MB1 nor the other prior art (DE 298 03 473 U1, videos MB6 and MB7) points to the solution (paragraphs 64 to 69). The auxiliary requests become moot (paragraph 70).

Key points for practice

• Claim terms are given their ordinary meaning, informed by the description and drawings: an indefinite article may denote a single item.
• A working surface need not be flat and may combine several sub-surfaces on one base frame (paragraphs 22, 25 and 27).
• Online videos are examined as prior art, but must clearly disclose each feature.
• Practical point: a proprietor that saves its patent only through a limitation filed with the defence should expect to bear part of the costs, here 30%, even where the action is dismissed.

Provisions applied

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 84, Art. 123(2)

Case law cited

10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Hamburg Local Division, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_278/2023), Advanced Bionics v MED-EL, 26 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_338/2023 and 410/2023), Munich Central Division, 16 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_1/2023), Munich Local Division, 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_233/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_335/2023), Paris Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2023), NanoString v President and Fellows of Harvard College, 17 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, 10 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.